The Diplomatic Confrontation of IFI at the Human Rights Council: Countering Chile's Colonialist Narrative
Images for Inclusion Inc (IFI) is proud to announce an important update in our ongoing efforts to safeguard the rights of the Mapuche People in Chile. Our advocacy provided an essential counter-narrative to the Chilean government's official diplomatic maneuver, an intervention that ultimately resulted in the formal suspension of the consultation process just days later, ensuring the complexities of the situation were heard at the highest levels of the United Nations.
On Thursday, September 25, 2025, our President and CEO, Lidia Arriagada García, successfully met with Dr. Albert K. Barume, UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, at the Palais des Nations in Geneva, Switzerland. The meeting, which took place in the Concordia Cafeteria, was a significant, last-minute intervention.
This face-to-face strategy was needed because, despite multiple prior attempts to communicate our concerns and legal analysis to his office, our efforts had not yet yielded a substantive response, forcing us to use a direct approach to personally brief him ahead of the major diplomatic event planned for the next day, during which Chile would defend the Prior Consultation process for a New Mapuche Land System before a series of especially European countries.
At that side event, titled "Recommendations of the Presidential Commission for Peace and Understanding in Chile: Progress and Challenges in their Implementation," not only would there be no one to tell them that they had conducted the Consultation incorrectly, but the Special Rapporteur had also been invited to make some comments (see flyer), risking not having a counter-voice.
The Road to Geneva: IFI's Timed Mediation
The in-person meeting with Dr. Barume, and one of his assistants, was the culmination of a systematic and urgent effort by Images for Inclusion (an NGO in Consultative Status with ECOSOC) to provide the Special Rapporteur's office with comprehensive legal documentation, which was a necessary escalation after our formal attempts via email had failed.
Our goal was to ensure the Special Rapporteur was aware of the severe flaws in Chile's "Prior Consultation on a New Mapuche Land System" ahead of a time-sensitive government side event titled "Recommendations of the Presidential Commission for Peace and Understanding in Chile: Progress and Challenges in their Implementation," which was scheduled for the very next day, Friday, September 26, 2025, at 14:00 hrs, in Concordia I at the UN Human Rights Council.
During this in-person meeting, Lidia Arriagada García personally handed Dr. Albert K. Barume printed copies of IFI's Open Letter and the Executive Summary, reinforcing the argument that the government's process is fundamentally illegitimate and must be revoked.
The conversation focused on the legal analysis and urgent appeal IFI had formally submitted, which argues that the Chilean government's Prior Consultation process is illegitimate, arbitrary, and lacks good faith.
Context: The High-Stakes UN Event Hosted by Chile
The side event, hosted by Chile, was designed to showcase its progress on the Mapuche conflict and was co-sponsored by ten Member States, including Australia, Canada, Germany, Italy, Mexico, Colombia, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.
The Special Rapporteur, Dr. Albert K. Barume, and the ILO Assistant Director-General for Governance, Rights and Dialogue, Ms. Manuela Tomei, were scheduled to provide commentaries during the event. IFI's intervention was necessary to provide Dr. Barume with a crucial counter-narrative, preventing the Chilean government's presentation from providing a misleading or incomplete picture of a process being rejected by hundreds of Indigenous communities led by ancestral Mapuche authorities.
Exposing the "Political Makeup" of the CPPyE
This Chile Side Event was also a coordinated attempt by government officials and two former CPPyE Commissioners to gain political endorsement and international legitimacy for its process. IFI's intervention immediately validated the necessity of this scrutiny:
IFI attended this Side Event, at a conference room where no video o photos where allowed. There the Special Rapporteur, Dr. Barume, explicitly acknowledged key aspects discussed in our meeting and emphasized the core principles the president of IFI had highlighted in its in-person submission:
Foundational Principles of Human Rights: The Special Rapporteur stated, "Unless a state can clearly describe what went wrong, it cannot really deliver human rights". This foundational principle is the legal and moral core of IFI's demand because it requires Chile to acknowledge the precise "historical wrong done" (Point 8.1). IFI's Open Letter asserts that this "wrong" is the State's failure to honor the 1825 Treaty of Tapihue, which recognized the Mapuche as a distinct nation. The State then unilaterally dismantled this treaty through the violent military campaign known as the "Pacification of Araucanía" and with it produced the dispossession of their lands and resources.
By demanding that Chile "clearly describe what went wrong," Dr. Barume validated IFI's position that a legitimate solution cannot be built on an administrative consultation; it must begin with the formal acknowledgment by the State that the original dispossession of Mapuche lands and territories was a violation of international law and the principle of Pacta Sunt Servanda (Agreements Must Be Fulfilled). Without this step, the consultation is merely a tool to perpetuate historical injustice.
Land Is Not a Commodity: The Special Rapporteur emphasized that land for Indigenous Peoples is NOT a commodity, highlighting that it "goes beyond" a commodity. This assertion directly validated IFI's core legal and spiritual critique. Dr. Barume’s statement refuted the legislative measures proposed by Chile in the Consultative process, which promote the "monetization of a collective and spiritual right" (Point 8.5) by offering financial compensation as a substitute for territorial restitution. This is why we argue that this approach is a form of covert dispossession, as the Chilean State proposes arbitrary limitations like the "10 hectares per family" standard and offers "alternative monetary reparation"—a transitory good—instead of the inalienable and spiritual link to the past and future of Mapuche culture.
Therefore, when Dr. Barume emphasized that a stronger right over land is required for the political representation of Indigenous Peoples, he further supported IFI's position that the proposed compensation model violates their right to self-determination.
FPIC Goes Beyond Consultation: The Special Rapporteur said that the human rights instrument, such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), establishes that the right to Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC), is a principle designed to "give back control over their destiny" to Indigenous Peoples, making it a right that "goes beyond consultation".
This affirmation directly validated IFI's core critique as the Chilean State's Consultation process is a strategy of evasion. The Open Letter denounces that the State strategically omits the UNDRIP (the highest standard of consent) and uses vague terms like "genuine dialogue" instead of the binding international term "Consultation" to deliberately "evade the highest and most binding obligation" (Point 2.4). This administrative failure has its roots in Supreme Decree No. 66 of 2013 , which institutionalizes the denial of the rights of Indigenous Peoples by allowing the State to declare the Consultation "fulfilled" even without reaching an agreement or obtaining consent (Point 1.1).
The Perspective of Norway was a cautious support and an implicit critical standard because it framed its support for Chile within its own experience with the Sami People. It praised Chile for organizing the event, calling the CPPyE initiative an "ambitious" effort and a "bold attempt" at a political solution, and expressed its willingness to "support this process in any way we can". However, in presenting its own model, Norway inadvertently highlighted Chile's structural flaws: by pointing out that the Sami People are recognized and protected in their Constitution and by the Sami Act through a representative and political body (Sámediggi), the Norwegian delegation indirectly underscored the lack of a legitimate representative body in the Chilean consultation design (a core IFI critique). Furthermore, by admitting that Norway has had to address its own historical challenges (assimilation policies) through a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, its intervention reinforced Dr. Barume's position on the need for Chile to first recognize its "historical wrong" before any administrative solution.
For her part, the ILO Assistant Director-General, Ms. Manuela Tomei, emphasized that ILO Convention 169 is fundamentally a "human rights and peace-building tool" designed to resolve these types of structural and long-standing problems. This declaration reinforced IFI's critique that the Chilean government is exploiting this peace tool by relying on the flawed domestic legislation (Supreme Decree No. 66) to impose an "obligation of means, not results" (Point 1.1).
Ms. Manuela Tomei used the following phrase to underline the historical depth of the problem: "This is not a conflict that started in the 1960's". By making this assertion, Ms. Tomei contradicted the tendency of some Chilean sectors to minimize the conflict to a few decades—a stance that the problem is not just one of agrarian policy or development, but one rooted in ancestral dispossession (the violation of the Treaty of Tapihue and the military Occupation of Mapuche territory in the 19th century).
Exposing Rhetoric and Structural Elusion
The Chilean government's rhetoric to obtain International Endorsement to support the Consultation process confirmed the need for this scrutiny:
Official Elusion Tactic: The Chilean Commission presented its proposals as actions to resolve a conflict they called an "intercultural and legal conflict that have hindered peaceful coexistence and comprehensive development in the country's southern regions". They further attempted to dismiss political accountability by calling it an issue "of the State, not the Government," effectively washing their hands of responsibility.
Chile's Demand for Patronage: The Chilean government's appeal was a request for long-term political patronage, transforming the international community into stakeholders in the domestic process. Officials, including Carlos Llancaqueo (President of Fundación Aitue), explicitly asked the community to: "honor this process, guide it, accompany it, and monitor it". This was a direct maneuver to:
Secure the "Política de Estado" Status: The appeal sought to make the consultation process immutable, transcending the scheduled change in administration (March 2026).
Neutralize Internal Opposition: The demand for international "monitoring" was positioned as necessary to ensure "continuity," but it simultaneously attempted to legitimize the process externally against the will of hundreds of Mapuche communities, led by ancestral authorities, who vehemently opposed the fulfillment of the Consultation process and its legislative measures proposed. In short, Chile was asking European and Latin American countries, the UN Special Rapporteur and the ILO to validate and guarantee the longevity of an outcome that was fundamentally rejected by the people the Human Rights Council is supposed to serve.
The False Claim of Representation: The former CPPyE Commissioner, Senator Carmen Gloria Aravena, in addition to reaffirming her stance on limiting the Mapuche People demand for land and the number of Mapuche families who receive them, pointed out that they had listened "to the Councils of Lonkos" to pretend it had Mapuche representativity. She stated: "We listened to the most distinct voices. And we listened to the Councils of Lonkos. We listened to the communities. We listened to the institutions. And that is why today the proposals are so diverse". The purpose of her statement was to support the legitimacy and representativeness of the Commission's proposals before the international forum, suggesting that the ancestral Mapuche authorities (the Lonkos) had been part of the dialogue. IFI's Open Letter (Points 5 and 6) explicitly objects to this, noting that the arbitrary imposition of participation by the State ignores the lack of legitimate and effective representation from traditional Mapuche ancestral authorities (Lonko, Machi, and Werken) in the design of the consultation and the legislative measures it proposes, which also left out around 50% of the Mapuche population living across the 16 regions of Chile, and which was a reason for the strong rejection of the Presidential Commission (CPPyE), the Prior Consultation, and the Proposed Legislative Measures.
Lack of Disaggregated Data: The former Commissioner Gloria Callupe Rain was the only one who delivered a historical vision that accounted for territorial dispossession, poverty, and distrust, and indicated that while there were Mapuche people on the commission, they "were not representative" of the Mapuche People. Gloria alluded to the victim violence registry, mentioning data such as the "9 thousand acts of violence," leaving out Mapuche victims of police violence, including girls, women, and the elderly Mapuche, for whom no disaggregated data or registries of police attacks exist, which shows the political biases and the need to comply with this year’s call from the Permanent Forum (UNPFII) for Chile to implement CEDAW General Recommendation No. 39.
Direct Diplomatic Counter-Action by IFI
At the end of Chile’s Side Event, and even though IFI’s president was denied a chance to speak having raised the hand, she executed a direct diplom atic action, personally distributing copies of the Open Letter's Executive Summary and Index—complete with QR codes to the full document—to delegates from numerous embassies and countries present, including those from Italy, Germany, Canada, Norway, Sweden, Australia, Peru, Guatemala, Panama, Mexico, and also the representative of ILO and the Permanent Mission of Chile to the UN in Geneva, among others.
This had the following impact:
a. Directly Undermined the Chilean 'Monologue,' transforming the Side Event from a State monologue into a challenged policy presentation with a broad and fair perspective, and compelling the embassies (many of whom co-sponsored the event) to confront IFI's detailed legal arguments.
b. By physically handing the documents to the delegates of the countries (including Norway, Germany, Mexico, etc.), we ensured those foreign ministries received official notice of the Mapuche Peoples' opposition, presenting the legal flaws.
c. It ensured Dr. Barume's critique (e.g., on FPIC and land) resonated with the specific embassies responsible for funding and supporting the CPPyE process.
d. Our action gave the international delegations the legal justification and obligation to question the process, transforming their role from passive supporters to informed actors.
Conclusion and Next Steps
The Dr. Barume and Ms. Tomei questioned the legitimacy of the process and its legal foundations (FPIC, Decree No. 66, historical harm), preventing Chile from presenting it as a successful model. The Side Event was, rather, an example of the complexities and errors to avoid in a human rights process.
While the Constitutional Recognition bill was detailed, the path to a genuine solution to the conflict requires transparency and honesty, not rhetoric. We agree with the assertion used by Ms. Manuela Tomei that resonated: "Peace is not decreed, it is built", however, for “peaceful coexistence” it is essential that this peace be built without militarization.
The side event failed to meet its objectives, focusing primarily on the presentation of the CPPyE's achievements and administrative details and failing to generate the expected dialogue on the "challenges." The majority of the time was used by the Chilean speakers, leaving no room for questions, which was where the deeper discussions were expected. It also omitted that today the ancestral Mapuche territory is under militarization and a state of emergency. There were interventions from Norway and Mexico, who clearly did not have the opportunity to hear the Mapuche People's perspective. The details of the commission itself were extensively and unilaterally explained, and the challenges and progress it intended to present were not delved into, limiting real dialogue.
Therefore, our participation set the stage for important changes: it was followed by the formal suspension of the consultation process just days later, validating the urgent concerns raised by IFI. While this suspension is a victory, the core solution and the demand of the Open Letter lie in the immediate revocation of Exempt Resolution No. 244. Furthermore, a real dialogue that respects international law must begin with the amendment of Supreme Decree No. 66 of 2013 and guarantee Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC), ensuring the effective participation of ancestral authorities (Lonko, Machi, and Werken) so that it is culturally relevant, socially legitimate, and effectively aligned with International Standards.
The side event showed it as a political lobbying exercise by Chile to gain international support for a process that the UN/ILO standards themselves deem fundamentally flawed. Therefore, we expect the international community to adopt a stance of critical vigilance and rejection of the "political makeup" of the Chilean process described in the Open Letter.
Furthermore, IFI makes a solemn call to the co-sponsoring countries (including Germany, Australia, Canada, Norway, and Spain) and the missions present in Geneva to condition their financial and political support on the State of Chile complying with the demand to revoke Exempt Resolution No. 244 and guarantee a dialogue process based on Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC), in strict observance of international law.
We invite all concerned parties and co-sponsoring Member States to carefully read our Open Letter to understand the necessity of this revocation and gain a comprehensive view of the legal issues:
and in Spanish PDF
Footnote
Disclaimer and Mandate: Images for Inclusion Inc (IFI) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization holding Special Consultative Status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council — ECOSOC—. This status empowers our organization to engage directly with UN mechanisms, including the Human Rights Council and Special Procedures. The advocacy documented herein demonstrates IFI's commitment to translating international legal obligations (such as FPIC) into demonstrable political action, thereby establishing our organization's credibility and influence as an indispensable legal actor dedicated to the collective rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Dr Albert K. Barume, Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples and Lidia Arriagada Garcia, President and CEO of Images for Inclusion Inc.
September 25, 2025 . The Palais des Nations, in Geneva, Switzerland.
Chile’s flyer for the side event"; "Recommendations of the Presidential Commission for Peace and Understanding in Chile: Progress and Challenges in their Implementation.”
Confirmation of submission from the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. September 12, 2025.
Below is a chronological list of key communications sent by IFI to the Special Rapporteur's office (hrc-sr-indigenous@un.org) and other UN bodies:
May 16, 2025 — Initial Observation: IFI submitted an initial "Observation Regarding the Commission for Peace and Understanding in Chile" to both the Special Rapporteur and the Chair of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. This document, titled "A call for reflection," raised concerns about the process and the actions of a Permanent Forum member regarding the Commission for Peace and Understanding (CPPyE) report. We received acknowlwdgement fo receipt by the Indigenous Peoples and Development Branch, UNDESA, stating this has been shared with the Chair of the Forum on May 23, 2025.
August 11, 2025 – Formal Urgent Appeal and Open Letter: IFI sent the first comprehensive submission to the Special Rapporteur's office. This included a detailed Open Letter requesting the revocation of Exempt Resolution No. 244 and an Urgent Appeal for Intervention. To facilitate action under the Special Rapporteur's mandate, the email requested that he submit a list of specific, detailed questions to the Government of Chile regarding the consultation's flaws.
August 13, 2025 – Corrected Appeal and Highlighting Urgency: A corrected version of the appeal, underscoring the extreme urgency as the consultation was scheduled to begin that very day.
September 12, 2025 – Final Consent for Action: After receiving the official acknowledgment from the Special Rapporteur's office , IFI provided explicit, signed consent on September 12, 2025, granting permission for our name to be disclosed in a letter that "may be sent as relevant to the Government, or others, such as intergovernmental organizations including United Nations entities, businesses, military or security companies". Furthermore, consent was given to have our name "appear in public reports presented to the Human Rights Council and inserted in a public database". This fulfilled the necessary procedural requirement, officially authorizing the Special Rapporteur to begin work on the case.
